Supplement of Quantifying the Impact of Synoptic Circulation Patterns on Ozone Variability in Northern China from April to October 2013–2017
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Supplement of Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 14477–14492, 2019 https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-14477-2019-supplement © Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Supplement of Quantifying the impact of synoptic circulation patterns on ozone variability in northern China from April to October 2013–2017 Jingda Liu et al. Correspondence to: Lili Wang ([email protected]) The copyright of individual parts of the supplement might differ from the CC BY 4.0 License. 1 Text S1 Lamb-Jenkinson circulation typing approach 2 In synoptic climatology, along with subjective or manual approaches, objective or automated 3 approaches are important and widely used synoptic weather typing procedures to identify recurring 4 map patterns or variable groups that typify significant modes of circulation and to classify each case 5 into one of these modes (Yarnal, 1993; Huth et al., 2008). There are many objective methods, such as 6 correlation-based map-pattern technique, sums-of-squares method, rotated principal component 7 analysis, hierarchical clustering (average linkage or Ward’s clustering), and K-means clustering. As 8 suggested by Huth (1996)and Yarnal (1993), , all the methods proved to be capable of yielding 9 meaningful classifications and none of them can be thought of as the best in all aspects. Which method 10 to use will depend mainly on the aim of the classification. Notably, the final number of synoptic types 11 using these algorithms is associated with a given period and region, statistical algorithms, prior 12 knowledge of the synoptic climatology of the region, and experimentation with various statistical 13 procedures; finally, a subjective decision as to how many clusters are appropriate for the study period is 14 made by the investigator. Thus, the results of a synoptic-type analysis are quite subjective. 15 The noted British climatologist Lamb developed a synoptic-scale, daily weather-map classification 16 for use over the British Isles, and seven basic types were identified manually (Lamb, 1972). Based on 17 Lamb's study, Jenkinson (1977) improved the subjective approach to an objective approach, called the 18 Lamb-Jenkinson method (Jones et al., 1993; Trigo and DaCamara, 2000). According to the sea level 19 pressure (SLP) of these 16 grids, a set of indices related to the direction and vorticity of geostrophic 20 flow are calculated to determine the weather type. The indices used are the following: southerly flow 21 component of the geostrophic surface wind (SF), westerly flow component of the geostrophic surface 22 wind (WF), resultant flow (FF), southerly shear vorticity (ZS), westerly shear vorticity (ZW) and total 23 shear vorticity (Z). These indices were computed using SLP values obtained for the retained number of 24 grid points, and are both for the flow units as for the geostrophic vorticity expressed in hPa. As shown 25 in 1a, the research area is placed in the central position, which refers to the area of connecting with P4, 26 P8, P12, P13, P9 and P5. The SLP of 16 grids can be used to characterize the distance of between the 27 study region and high-/low- pressure system, which result in the method is available to classify the 28 weather pattern for each day and successfully applied in many areas (Lamb, 1972; Jenkinson, 1977; 29 Trigo and DaCamara, 2000; Demuzere et al., 2009; Santurtún et al., 2015; Pope et al., 2016; Liao et al., 30 2017). The following presents the calculation methods for each index: 31 SF=1.035×[0.25×(P5+2×P9+P13)-0.25×(P4+2×P8+P12)] 32 WF=[0.5×(P12+P13)-0.5×(P4+P5)] 33 ZS=0.85×[0.25(P6+2×P10+P14)-0.25×(P5+2×P9+P13)-0.25×(P4+2×P8+P12)+0.25×(P3+2×P7+P11)] 34 ZW=1.12×[0.5×(P15+P16)-0.5×(P8+P9)]-0.91×[0.5×(P8+P9)-0.5×(P1+P2)] 35 F=(SF2+WF2)1/2 36 Z=ZS+ZW 37 P represents the SLP at the grid point. The positions of 16 grid points are shown in Fig. 1a; for example, 38 P1 is the SLP at the 1st grid point. 39 The weather types are defined by comparing values of FF and Z: 40 (1) Direction of flow (in degrees) is given by tan−1(WF/SF), 180° being added if WF is positive. The 41 appropriate wind direction is computed using an eight-point compass, allowing 45° per sector. 42 (2) If |Z| < FF, flow is essentially straight and considered to be of a pure directional type (eight 43 different possibilities according to the compass directions). 44 (3) If |Z| > 2FF, the pattern is considered to be of a pure cyclonic type if Z > 0 or of a pure anticyclonic 45 type if Z < 0. 46 (4) If FF < |Z| < 2FF, flow is considered to be of a hybrid type and is therefore characterized by both 47 direction and circulation (16 different types). 48 Thus, compared with other objective synoptic classification approaches, the advantage of 49 Lamb-Jenkinson method is that the number of synoptic types and the weather type that is present each 50 day in the specific region is robust and fixed. In addition, the method clearly gives the typical pressure 51 fields (anticyclone, cyclone, directional types and hybrid types), which can well reflect the wind fields 52 over the study region. Particularly, directional types can represent the prevailing wind direction in this 53 area under the control of the specific weather pattern. Many studies have shown that the high/low 54 concentrations of ozone are always associated with the southerly/northerly winds in North China (Han 55 et al., 2019; Li et al., 2019). Consequently, the Lamb-Jenkinson weather type scheme is a better 56 method for exploring the O3 pollution in North China. 57 Text S2 Segmented synoptic-regression approach 58 In an attempt to objectively define and weight the meteorological variables, Eder et al. (1994) indicated 59 that most influence the O3 concentrations within each weather type, and they developed stepwise linear 60 regression models of the following form: 푛 61 푂3 = 훽0 + ∑푖=1 훽푖푥푖 (1) 62 where O3 represents the predicted MDA8 O3 for each weather category, 훽0 is a constant, 훽푖 represents 63 the coefficients (determined by the least squares method) of the independent meteorological variables 64 푥푖, and n is the number of independent meteorological variables in the equation. A stepwise regression 65 procedure was utilized because it sequentially identifies the ‘best subset’ of the independent 66 meteorological variables. 67 This paper used multiple linear regression with a stepwise method for variable selection to reconstruct 68 the time series for O3 with F probability <0.05 to enter and F probability <0.10 to exit. After excluding 69 the missing data and disordering the time sequences, 80% of these days were used to build the potential 70 forecast equations and the remaining 20% were used to validate the accuracy of the equations. 71 Tables 72 Table S1. Locations, period of available data, average MDA8 O3 concentrations, and exceedance ratios of 58 73 cities. Abb, Lon, Lat and Alt are short for abbreviation, longitude, latitude and altitude, respectively. Province City name Abb Lon Lat Alt Period O3 (μg Exceedance m-3) Ratio (%) Hebei Chengde CD 117.91 40.95 379.20 2013-2017 118 18.93 Hebei Zhangjiakou ZJK 114.87 40.81 860.20 2013-2017 114 15.84 Shanxi Datong DT 113.31 40.10 1051.17 2015-2017 112 9.38 Beijing Beijing BJ 116.38 40.04 58.25 2013-2017 127 29.43 Hebei Qinhuangdao QHD 119.60 39.93 2.80 2013-2017 102 9.56 Hebei Tangshan TS 118.18 39.63 6.83 2013-2017 124 25.12 Hebei Langfang LF 116.71 39.54 19.50 2013-2017 120 22.87 Shanxi Shuozhou SZ 112.43 39.34 1094.60 2015-2017 133 23.13 Tianjin Tianjin TJ 117.35 39.09 6.27 2013-2017 113 17.24 Hebei Baoding BD 115.47 38.87 15.00 2013-2017 125 25.68 Shanxi Xinzhou XZ 112.72 38.45 778.00 2015-2017 110 13.13 Hebei Cangzhou CZ 116.86 38.30 14.33 2013-2017 127 25.59 Hebei Shijiazhuang SJZ 114.48 38.03 153.75 2013-2017 116 21.18 Shanxi Yangquan YQ 113.56 37.86 767.83 2015-2017 119 20.63 Shanxi Taiyuan TY 112.52 37.86 800.89 2013-2017 116 18.67 Hebei Hengshui HS 115.68 37.74 23.00 2015-2017 138 34.86 Shanxi Jinzhong JZ 112.73 37.70 796.00 2015-2017 110 16.25 Shanxi Lvliang LL 111.13 37.51 943.00 2015-2017 88 3.75 Shandong Yantai YT 121.37 37.50 9.17 2015-2017 118 12.50 Shandong Weihai WH 122.09 37.49 26.00 2015-2017 115 9.53 Shandong Dezhou DZ 116.30 37.46 22.67 2015-2017 146 40.78 Shandong Dongying DY 118.64 37.43 3.25 2015-2017 146 35.94 Shandong Binzhou BZ 118.00 37.38 16.67 2015-2017 116 17.19 Hebei Xingtai XT 114.49 37.06 71.75 2013-2017 115 19.96 Shandong Zibo ZB 118.01 36.73 81.67 2015-2017 139 32.03 Shandong Weifang WF 119.14 36.71 53.80 2015-2017 142 34.38 Shandong Jinan JN 116.98 36.65 55.25 2015-2017 130 45.31 Hebei Handan HD 114.51 36.60 64.50 2013-2017 116 31.25 Shandong Liaocheng LC 115.99 36.45 44.67 2015-2017 133 29.06 Shandong Laiwu LW 117.69 36.21 207.67 2015-2017 123 21.56 Shandong Tai’an TA 117.11 36.19 170.00 2015-2017 126 22.81 Shanxi Changzhi CZH 113.11 36.19 924.40 2015-2017 141 36.72 Shandong Qingdao QD 120.39 36.15 23.78 2015-2017 105 12.66 Henan Anyang AY 114.37 36.09 84.20 2015-2017 119 22.03 Shanxi Linfen LFE 111.51 36.08 466.33 2015-2017 115 19.84 Henan Hebi HB 114.25 35.79 115.67 2015-2017 123 19.38 Henan Puyang PY 115.04 35.77 56.00 2015-2017 124 22.19 Shanxi Jincheng JC 112.85 35.50 743.17 2015-2017 103 15.94 Shandong Jining JN 116.59 35.42 34.00 2015-2017 135 31.09 Shandong Rizhao RZ 119.51 35.41 31.00 2015-2017 122 16.09 Henan Xinxiang XX 113.88 35.29 75.50 2015-2017 125 27.81 Shandong Heze HZ 115.45 35.25 47.00 2015-2017 131 25.00 Henan Jiaozuo JZ 113.23 35.22 93.00 2015-2017 122 23.91 Shanxi Yuncheng YC 111.02 35.05 380.20 2015-2017 117 19.06